427 with 4.280 pistons?

[NIsaacs]

I know most builders will not recommend anything larger than .030 over, but I see Summit offers .040 and .050 over pistons. Has anyone ever went over .030 on a 427 with a good sonic test?

I also know most builders don't like to sleeve them, however I think in Steve Christ's Big Block Ford Book, they built a marine 427 with 8 sleeves? I can't find my book, I think one of my boys has it, lol.

We have a 427 side oiler with some damage on 2 cylinders, one on each bank from a wrist pin keeper that fell out. We are not sure yet if even a .050 will fix them so most likely sleeves will be needed.  Can we save this block and still have a dependable engine? Looking for at least 500 hp, with the 3.98 crank currently in use. It will be going back in a 1970 F-100 short bed 4x2 for some bracket racing. 

Thanks, Nick

[Joe-JDC]

Raced my 427 at +.040 for many years.  Joe-JDC

[Tboggus]

Personally, I would sleeve those two cylinders and keep the bore as small as possible. If the rest of the block will clean up at .030, that's where I would stop.
Travis

[gt350hr]

    Sonic check it . Very important to know where and how much metal is where. Pistons can be made in ANY size that rings are available for. Lots of .040+ 427s out there . Use a sleeve as a last resort.

[MeanGene]

Always gotta check it- especially sideoilers. I have two at .040, both centeroilers- one needs a small crack in the valley repaired, has flattops, C4 iron crank and big bolt rods, basic rebuilt V-drive engine, had a 324/500 cam in it. Also has scores in one cylinder, looks like it lost pin clips. The other is in my Galaxie, was built for a Falcon drag car in 1975, ran 3 years running 10.80's around 126, no maintenance. Sat unassembled for a year, got put back together with the same rings when I needed an engine for my F250 Highboy 4x4, was in there for many years (and smoked a 911S one night), and has been in my Galaxie for a long time, still with the 1975 rings, still thunders pretty good. I do have a set of custom big dome Wisecos at .050, got them at a swap as they were installed in a sideoiler that lasted 6 passes before splitting a cylinder wall

[jayb]

The 427 stroker that was used as the dyno mule in my book is 0.060" over.  Beaten the tar out of that thing many times, no problems.  The book has the sonic test data, which is a little scary, but with the cloverleafed cross section of the 427 bores, they are stronger than you think.

[NIsaacs]

The 427 stroker that was used as the dyno mule in my book is 0.060" over.  Beaten the tar out of that thing many times, no problems.  The book has the sonic test data, which is a little scary, but with the cloverleafed cross section of the 427 bores, they are stronger than you think.

That's good news! I went back and read the story, that was one dangerous "492"...

The block is at .030 over now so it is going to be close if .050 will clear it up, I haven't seen it yet but my son don't think so, so maybe .060 will.

The 428 in my sled pull truck is at .060 over with no problems. It don't have a lot of miles on it but I freshened it up last in '95. The 428 in my dually was .060 over also with no problems and I have beat them severely over the years.

The machine shop said bring it down, so we will see I guess.

Nick

[My427stang]

My 63 center oiler reminds me of that joke, "looking for lost dog, deaf, 3 legged, missing one eye, tail cut off, goes by "Lucky"

I have run Diamond pistons at 4.277 on the street since 2006.  Blowby is zero, doesn't burn any oil, quiet when cold, and leakdown numbers are tight.   The block has 4 sleeves, remainder sonic checked fine, sleeves were in their when I got it due to damage when it scattered twice.  You never know, but if you have to sleeve them, it's really no issue, just need to make sure all machining is done right

That being said, I eventually plan to build a blower motor for this car, but I probably wouldn't push much harder on this block, although I'd say it has moved as much as it every will at this point... it is truly a "seasoned" block LOL

[Stangman]

Mines at 4.265 don’t know what cubic inches are I’d imagine 485 but my sonic check was
90 in one spot Barry said it was ok so I’m good with it then. I have about 1200 miles on it
And 20 1/8 mile passes on it and runs cool so far so good. He says there are a bunch of 427
Blocks out there at 90. And like My427Stang my motor is a 63 center oiler

[blykins]

I'd sonic and check it.

I've checked two 351C blocks in the past few months that had cylinder walls under .050" thickness.  On one I did a half fill and then proceeded to make over 600 hp with it at 8500 rpm. 

I'd be comfortable with .090-.100" thickness on a 427 block.  I've ran them that thin with no problem.

Overheating because of overboring or a thin cylinder is actually a wives' tale and has no merit.  The only con to a thin cylinder is that it will flex and you may lose ring seal.

[NIsaacs]

The machine shop has the block and after just a visual of the damaged cylinders, they are recommending 8 sleeves, stock bore. The original thought was a mild build due to thin cylinders....now my son is thinking full roller/stroker build, 482. Maybe I can cabbage some of the castoff parts for my 428, Lol.

He is looking at the Trick Flow heads and stroker kits from Summit, hasn't got to the cam and valve train yet. His cam for his 501 BBF sled puller was from Cam Research, so probably go back there.

Nick

[CaptCobrajet]

I would not recommend sleeving all eight, or even adjacent holes in a 427.  The deck will usually split between the cylinders.  I sleeve all eight back to 390 and 428 bores with flanged sleeves often, and that works well, but we are 4.300 or 4.380 OD with light press on those.  To get .090 wall in a 427, there is not much left behind the sleeve, and some hit water.  You might think about a BBM block if you are going for big power.

[cammerfe]

Sleeve quality and material makes a difference. Carl Holbrook did a lot of sleeving, including even some furnace-brazed combinations, and told me that using the right steel is critical.

KS

[billtroth]

My marine block 427 stroker is .040 over and block filled to the bottom of the water pump holes and so far no problem. That said I did blow the first race motor that was also a marine block 427 that sonic checked good but broke through the side of the bore on #4 cylinder.  It happened at about 7200 r.p.m. so the motor was trashed.  That' why I block filled the motor I run now.

[NIsaacs]

Well, the block now has 8 new sleeves, with JE, 4.25, 12.5 to 1 Pistons on order and a set of Trick flow heads. He is going to keep the 3.98 crank and maybe the Holly Street Dominator intake. I would post a picture of the new paint job on the 1970 F-100 4x2 short bed, but I can't anymore. He went with the original oem Royal Maroon.  I bought the pickup new in 1969.

Nick

[Dumpling]

Is it out of the question to have different bore sizes in the same engine?  +.050 in some cylinders, +.030 in others?

[blykins]

Out of the question?  The high-quantity rebuilders (Jasper, etc.) used to do it all the time to save money. 

Is it the right way of doing things?  No....

[KMcCullah]

Well, the block now has 8 new sleeves, with JE, 4.25, 12.5 to 1 Pistons on order and a set of Trick flow heads.

Nick

I think I'd Hard Blok it to the water pump holes, just to firm things up. And maybe add an oil cooler if it's gonna be running down the highway. Sounds like a sweet F100!

[NIsaacs]

I can't post a picture, but I can post a link to one, Lol. This is what it looked like in the mid '80's, racing at Phoenix Raceway Park.

https://www.turbodieselregister.com/threads/259571-To-scratch-an-itch-caused-by-an-elephant?p=2521681#post2521681

Nick

[Dumpling]

Out of the question?  The high-quantity rebuilders (Jasper, etc.) used to do it all the time to save money. 

Is it the right way of doing things?  No....

Why not?
If the off-sized cylinders are matched around some point of symetry?

[blykins]

It's rarely done that way....it's always to fix a boogered-up cylinder or something. 

But, if you were to just randomly bump the bore size up on certain cylinders, you're gonna have higher compression ratio and even hp/torque on those cylinders.  It's never gonna be balanced.  Not sure why you'd want to do that on purpose.

[cjshaker]

Out of the question?  The high-quantity rebuilders (Jasper, etc.) used to do it all the time to save money. 

I had to read that twice. At first I thought you said quality, not quantity

I've never seen it done, but I'd imagine it would be impossible to balance an engine built that way. The difference in power output per cylinder would only exaggerate that feeling. Puts me in mind of a dryer in the spin cycle.

[C6AE]

Is it out of the question to have different bore sizes in the same engine?  +.050 in some cylinders, +.030 in others?

 I have seen this, more than once it was a surprise, and if you didn't know it was done you probably would never know. Replacement OEM pistons are all the same weight and the difference in displacement is too minimal to "feel" a difference.  There were set-ups to bore engines as well as turn crankshafts while the block was in the car. I have also seen odd sized rod journals, rods of significantly different length, and many other examples of pragmatism. I have seen plenty of heavy diesels with odd pistons, different compression ratios even. The owner or driver never had a clue...

[bsprowl]

I've done it a couple of times when a cylinder would not clean up at 0.030.  It cleaned up at 0.040 or 0.060 (that let me use an off the shelf piston and ring set).  I removed a enough metal in the combustion chamber to even out the compression ratio (the first time) and even made it a bit less (the second with the 0.060 piston) to compensate for the power produced by the slightly larger cylinder displacement.

The engines ran fine.  No noticeable vibration.  Both times the owners were aware of what I was doing and the cost of fixing right and fixing this away was the reason for the "poor boy" fix.  I'd do it again.

[NIsaacs]

Starting to look like an FE again. I think those rockers are Speedmaster. Are they any good? Crane solid roller can, no clue on the lifters.

[NIsaacs]

I could only post one attachment for some reason, here is the cam card.

Humm, for some reason I can't post it. Here is a link instead: https://www.summitracing.com/parts/crn-348521/overview/make/ford
 Here is the truck, maybe, lol

[NIsaacs]

About 1985 I think...

[turbohunter]

Starting to look like an FE again. I think those rockers are Speedmaster. Are they any good? Crane solid roller can, no clue on the lifters.

Think those rockers are PRW. They’re stainless. I’ve been running a set in my truck for years on a hydraulic roller with no problems.

[thatdarncat]

Starting to look like an FE again. I think those rockers are Speedmaster. Are they any good? Crane solid roller can, no clue on the lifters.

The subject of that style rocker arm came up recently on the FE Fanatics Facebook page, there were warnings of failures. I don’t know all the details, but you may want to investigate further before using. I don’t know if the rockers in these pictures are exactly the same, but the owner of at least one said it was a PRW.

[blykins]

I would also check the rocker arm pattern as well.   Rocker stands need a big cut off the bottoms to work with Trick Flow heads.

[machoneman]

Yeah, those SS rocker pics show interference failure, not casting or machining failure. Something's not right with the valve train set-up.

[turbohunter]

I think you can break anything if you try hard enough.

[Barry_R]

A casting with inadequate cross section around the bushing.  Just too close to the "edge" on design - any flaw or issue with get a failure.

[turbohunter]

Not arguing, just discussing. I’ll never know as much as you’ve forgotten. I agree the round the shaft section looks small. But it is steel not aluminum.
My set up runs very well but it’s a low rpm, moderate spring pressure truck that doesn’t see much over 5k rpm (except maybe on a couple hillclimbs ). And my valve train geometry is good.
We really don’t know anything about what happened to the rockers in the pix. I assume rpms and spring pressure did them in. If that is the case then I wouldn’t have chosen those rockers for that app.

[NIsaacs]

Starting to look like an FE again. I think those rockers are Speedmaster. Are they any good? Crane solid roller can, no clue on the lifters.

Think those rockers are PRW. They’re stainless. I’ve been running a set in my truck for years on a hydraulic roller with no problems.

Thanks for the response, I didn't have a clue so I looked them up and found these, they look the same as the PRW.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/cbclk2/dWU9NTIwNkIxMUQ2RUJDNDg3NiZ1dD0xNTQ2MzM2MDU3OTYxJnVvPUlHU3lFUGxpMzV4R3UxNk9SalptYWk5eUF1Jmx0PTImZXM9eE0wOEIzQUdQU19SJmplPTQ1ZTZlZWUyLTBkYWEtMTFlOS1hNThmLTAwOGNmYTViNTY1Yy0yYWVjYjc3Yjc3MDAmdWk9NTAuMzguMjE0LjE2NCZqdD0xNTQ2MzM2MDU3OTg3JnBwPWUy/RV=2/RE=1546364858/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.bing.com%2faclick%3fld%3dd3TjW_yQpa3fdau0XAIMTJAzVUCUwJq5dsaYWtyN8epDg9dLS93z0xvrV7MwcaIe58lzHksvGBQvmgeXgUduAz3eDEj_NtJj6xuhhWF2V5f6gaurJe6lR1o7WwoYkbDqaQcPVCBNpKevaNhcLLaZJyg9vOGAYvj5fS4hkGmmWZGwWXoGle%26u%3dhttps%253a%252f%252fwww.jegs.com%252fi%252fSpeedmaster%252f746%252fPCE261.1173%252f10002%252f-1%253fCAWELAID%253d230006180038154520%2526CATARGETID%253d230006180038440114%2526CADEVICE%253dc%2526https%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.jegs.com%25252Fi%25252FSpeedmaster%25252F746%25252FPCE261.1173%25252F10002%25252F-1%25253FCAWELAID%25253D230006180038154520%2526utm_source%253dbing%2526utm_term%253d%2526utm_campaign%253dBing%252520Shopping_New%2526utm_medium%253dcpc%2526utm_content%253d_pcrid_75522711385578_pkw__pmt_be_pdv_c%2526ref%253dpaid%2526brand%253d%2526channel%253dShopping%2526jegspromo%253dthirdparty%2526msclkid%253d%257bmsclkid%257d%26rlid%3d7e7ae16c64491b8feed3bd4753735299/RK=2/RS=iE27osgyfIddEfhv3l0SpM2jsJY-;_ylt=AwrNGsc5NytcSiMAS5NXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTFiM3VlMTRqBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDQjY4MzNfMQRzZWMDb3YtZWFzdC1wbGE-;_ylc=X3IDMgRydAMx?p=fe+ford+roller+rockers

[NIsaacs]

I would also check the rocker arm pattern as well.   Rocker stands need a big cut off the bottoms to work with Trick Flow heads.

That's what I understand. I asked my son if the shop did that and he didn't know. I really hate to get involved too much and cause a rift with the machine shop. They are excellent at what they do ( I have had them do numerous projects for 35 years) but, they are not FE people or really even Ford.


They built my son a 501 BB Ford for his pulling truck and installed oem tapered seat, short, 14 mm threaded spark plugs in his Edelbrock heads....twice!

[blykins]

I would also check the rocker arm pattern as well.   Rocker stands need a big cut off the bottoms to work with Trick Flow heads.

That's what I understand. I asked my son if the shop did that and he didn't know. I really hate to get involved too much and cause a rift with the machine shop. They are excellent at what they do ( I have had them do numerous projects for 35 years) but, they are not FE people or really even Ford.


They built my son a 501 BB Ford for his pulling truck and installed oem tapered seat, short, 14 mm threaded spark plugs in his Edelbrock heads....twice!

Nick, it will be apparent just by looking at it.  Look into the end of the heads, like you're getting an end-view of the rocker arm.  If they haven't been cut, the rocker tip will start way towards the exhaust and roll to the edge of the valve as you roll the engine over.

[NIsaacs]

Thanks Brent, if I can get there before they button it up I will look at that geometry, you would think they would know that, but....

[NIsaacs]

Update:

He drove it and says it revs like a small block. He says it is plumb wicked, the 12.50 street slicks go up in smoke. He is running a FiTech system, not sure which one.

Worthless without pictures....can't post one for some reason....

https://www.turbodieselregister.com/threads/1970-ford-f-100-4x2-build.261034/#post-2581589

https://www.turbodieselregister.com/threads/1970-ford-f-100-4x2-build.261034/page-2#post-2620738

[badcatt]

I was able to load them here. Nice looking truck.

[NIsaacs]

badcatt, thank you!

[frnkeore]

If Blair is still following this, I'd be interested in what the machine work costs, to do a set of the flanged sleeves.

[TomP]

Posted on Turbodiesel site.  Don't those people hate gas engines?
Nice to hear it's all worked out. If it holds coolant it's probably going to be OK.

 I have a 64 block that i've put 4.28" as well. And possibly need to do that with my other marine block since it is at 4.270" now with the many honings on a 4.263" bore.

[NIsaacs]

Welp, about 20 street miles....lost two mains and a cracked block between two cylinders....probably going to be hard to find a stock bore block so he can reuse the pistons.

Have you hugged your Cummins lately?

[Tommy-T]

Seems I'm always late to a conversation.

The C4 top oiler in my blown Mustang had 8 sleeves. The block was .030 when I got it and a sonic check showed several spots at .070 and thinner. So it was sleeves or junk it. After spending $1500 in block work at the machine shop I took it home and assembled it. It ran for 5 years, mostly car shows and such, but it never achieved really good ring seal and after a couple of years it would "use" some coolant.That is not to say the motor didn't run good...put 8lbs. of boost to a 454 inch FE and things get exciting!

I eventually sold the car and the new owner broke the cast 428 crankshaft right behind #1 main within a couple of months. I bought him a new Eagle crank because I felt bad. BUT, when he took the block to the machine shop for cleaning they found 3 cracks between adjacent cylinders on the deck. He bought a BBM block and is happy as hell with it now.

The point of all of this is 3 things. 1.) I think I'm done with forced induction on my FE motors. But if I do it again it'll be with an aftermarket block and an aftermarket steel crank. The learning curve is VERY fast with a blower and I've got a couple sets of $1000 dollar pistons to prove it. 2.) Say NO to 8 sleeves. Really, say no to sleeves next to each other period. 3.) If the machine shop says your block needs $1500+ in machine work, put that money towards an aftermarket or NOS block.

[gt350hr]

    The big problem "I" see on the rocker failure issue is the pushrod is too short. As the ball on the adjuster gets further out of the rocker body itself , the "leverage" at "rock over" becomes more severe and ANY rocker will be over stressed in THAT area. I have seen stock cast iron , Dove and Harland Sharp broken in the same location. "If " prefect contact pattern requires the adjuster to be that for out , you need a rocker  with more material / more "blend radius material" to remove / relocate the stress point seen in the failures.
   Randy

[gt350hr]

     I am sorry two of you found out the hard way what I have been saying for decades. Sleeving ALL 8 cylinders back to standard is a BAD deal. You can NOT restore virginity!  IF you spend another $2,000 in furnace brazing the sleeves to the block ( and ALL of the remachining required AFTER the furnace brazing) you have a chance because the block becomes "one piece" again.

[jayb]

You know, I don't know what reputable machine shop would ever recommend sleeving all 8 cylinders, or for that matter sleeving two adjacent cylinders.  Anybody in the business ought to know better.  The exception would be sleeving a 427 block down to 390 size; I have heard of that being done with a stock eliminator engine, so that you are not boring the original 427 bore out very much for the sleeve, and therefore the deck integrity remains. 

As far as supercharging an FE, I ran 17 pounds of boost in my 489" FE in 2007 and 2008, made over 1000 HP on the dyno, took it on Drag Week, ran 9s at the track, etc. etc., without problems.  BUT, that engine had a Shelby block.  I don't think I'd trust any stock FE block at that power level unless it was filled.

[GerryP]

...BUT, that engine had a Shelby block.  I don't think I'd trust any stock FE block at that power level unless it was filled.

I might not be remembering this correctly, but isn't the Shelby block architecture that of fastening the heads not at the deck, but in the crank bulkhead/webbing?  If that's the case, then there isn't much chance cylinder pressure could cause the deck to lift since the deck only positions the sleeves.  I'm not sure even a fully-filled FE block with eight sleeves would be strong enough to stay together.  As Randy pointed out, furnace brazing is the only solution, but that's kind of an absurd solution if this isn't a concours restoration.

[NIsaacs]

My son bought this block....

http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?PHPSESSID=60oa9bu31o5t4u8t89qppqb807&topic=5564.msg79342#msg79342

[wayne]

I think super stock guys used to sleeve 427s down to 428 until nhra said no i seen some in Carl Holbrooks shop.

[MeanGene]

Yep, that's how I learned about it many years ago, IIRC Crazy Nate did it too